Mirrorless - a different view (Page 15): It's just a fact. DSLR's have simpler parts. Unless of course you think a viewfinder made of glass is way more expensive than an electronic EVF...

Canisdirus

larryepage wrote:

Ok. If it's important for you to believe that, it's not worth the fight to me.

It's just a fact.
DSLR's have simpler parts.
Unless of course you think a viewfinder made of glass is way more expensive than an electronic EVF as an example.
Cameras are getting more complicated...not less.

Hip Coyote

How dare you disparage my mirrorless Olympus micro 4/3 camera! I will meet you at the Kodak Film Hut at 1st and Easy Street and we shall duel. Ok, I jest...Im happy with my little Oly m43 system..mirrorless. It is a battery hog, but the wysiwyg aspect of the view finder helps me...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

IBIS turns every lens into a stabilized lens, all our fast primes are that much better. You can review the menus and playback in the view finder, eliminating the glare issue of the LCD. And those of eye with less young eyes, the 10x zoom in the EVF makes 'seeing' the details better than LiveView every could have dreamed to be, zoomed both for focusing and review. And then the most important benefit of all: The grass is always greener when captured with a mirrorless camera.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Ysarex wrote:

Removing the mirror function in a DSLR so that it works like a point and shoot with no eye level viewfinder is not applying mirrorless technology to a DSLR. The back LCD on any camera is not an EVF and not a substitute for an EVF. You dug a dumb hole and now you're digging it deeper.

And were back again to your twisted rants without understanding of what is being said.
Did I say anything about removing the mirror? Nope. So where did that come from? Making a new pile of dirt to cover you grave? I said the new technologies being applied to mirrorless can be adapted for use in a DSLR. In this case, using the latest focusing technology would improve the video & if they want, the continues shooting with the mirror-up.
Did I say that live view and EVF are the same? No, its only your assumption. Can the live view work in lieu of EVF, sure it can. Your so so offline I really don't want to go on. Its always like this with you. you keep creating your own ideas misinterpreting whatever is being said to fuel your distorted point of view. Truth be told forming an intellectual conversation with you is almost impossible as you have too much bias.

Ysarex wrote:

I know how it works. I linked the article for you.

No. You don't know. Because when you gave the link it was to support your claim that the 25mm distance is a limit that make wide angle lens on a DSLR is inferior.

Ysarex wrote:

You're wrong. This is common knowledge. The retrofocus design solves the problem of providing room for the mirror but makes it extremely difficult to design the lens free of distortion. Lenses of that design no matter how hard the manufacturer tries will exhibit some degree of distortion after they have been made twice as big twice as heavy and twice as costly. If they could design the distortion out they would.

Common knowledge? Do you even know what you are saying? If I ask 1000 people to explain wide angle lens construction, how many will get it right?
Extremely difficult is not the same as impossible. Your words as always are contradicting one another as to make your sentences nonsense.

Ysarex wrote:

In fact they do design it out by using a different lens design but then there's no room for the mirror.(see linked article below).
How is it you missed basic common knowledge? Here's an article that will help: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

And then once more you send something that supports my claim because in your distorted vision it proves you are right. You missed reading this part;
"a wide-angle lens must deal with light coming in from… well, a wide angle. This makes them more prone to distortion and aberration in general. The big negative element in front exacerbates this problem, so most reverse telephoto lenses require a significant number of lens elements to correct this distortion."

As for "extreme wide angle", it wont matter what lens design is used, there will always be a limit to how the image can be projected flat into the sensor. Because that is no different from making a map of the world which is a ball to be a flat rectangle.

So again, I refuse to play your stupid game. I'm out.

Bbarn Loc: Ohio

Fifteen pages, and I fail to see a view of mirrorless different from that in several threads proceeding this one. Perhaps in the next mirrorless thread (coming soon, I suppose).

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

A good photograph has the most pixels.
A good photographer has a mirrorless camera.

A Great photograph would not have any pixels at all. It would be devoid of granularity altogether.

A Great photographer does not have to rely on the presence or absence of a mirror.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Wallen wrote:

Did I say anything about removing the mirror?

Yes you did. Switching to live-view is "removing the mirror" you said: "During live view when the mirror is up there is no reason why the autofocus technology used in the mirrorless can not be applied." Which is ridiculous.

Wallen wrote:

Nope. So where did that come from? Making a new pile of dirt to cover you grave? I said the new technologies being applied to mirrorless can be adapted for use in a DSLR.

You said: "Every technology that goes into mirrorless can be applied to DSLR,..." You're wrong. On sensor PDAF auto focus can not be applied to a DSLR. Now you want to whine and say it can be applied when the camera is shooting video. That's not what you said. Most of us use DSLRs to take still photos. You don't get to back peddle and say you meant video. Your claim is rubbish. You can not adapt on sensor PDAF auto focus to a DSLR and use the camera to take photographs.

Wallen wrote:

Did I say that live view and EVF are the same?

Pretty much. You said the back LCD can substitute as an EVF: You: "There is nothing on the way and the back screen will act as an EVF." That's ridiculous.

You're saying that a DSLR can be adapted to use on-sensor PDAF auto focus as used in a mirrorless camera and to do so the DSLR can be placed into live view. The OVF goes blank and you have no viewfinder and you think the back LCD can act as an EVF. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID. That's nonsense if you think that's applying mirrorless technology to a DSLR.

Wallen wrote:

Because when you gave the link it was to support your claim that the 25mm distance is a limit that make wide angle lens on a DSLR is inferior.

I provided the link to explain what a retro-focus wide angle was and why it's necessary in order to allow room for a DSLR mirror.

Wallen wrote:

Extremely difficult is not the same as impossible.

No one has successfully made and sold one that is equally free of distortion as the non-retrofocus design. Not one. Extremely difficult in this case means that they do not exist on the market and never have. Which makes my assertion that I can use better lenses than are available for a DSLR correct.

Wallen wrote:

And then once more you send something that supports my claim because in your distorted vision it proves you are right. You missed reading this part;
"a wide-angle lens must deal with light coming in from… well, a wide angle. This makes them more prone to distortion and aberration in general. The big negative element in front exacerbates this problem, so most reverse telephoto lenses require a significant number of lens elements to correct this distortion."

I did not miss reading that part and it supports what I've said all along. It's difficult to design and build a wide angle lens that is free of distortion. If you have to make room for an SLR mirror in the process the task becomes immensely more difficult because you have to resort to a retro-focus design and that makes correcting distortion so difficult that no one successfully does it.

What I said about mirrorless versus DSLR wide angle lenses is correct and the article I linked explains why: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Wyantry wrote:

A Great photograph would not have any pixels at all. It would be devoid of granularity altogether.

A Great photographer does not have to rely on the presence or absence of a mirror.

The math of a beautiful image is easy: it has twice the megapixels of your current sensor and didn't involve a mirror.

Jim Bianco

CHG_CANON wrote:

The universe works in crazy ways. You can have good luck wash over you in waves, just like bad luck. Or, you can change to a mirrorless camera.

AND STILL HAVE BAD LUCK!!!!!!!

Mikeg50 Loc: SE Missouri

I don’t know - it just doesn’t bother me. Their marketing departments are paid to sell. Same goes for autos, beer, TVs, everything. I think you guys are exaggerating the hype. I just don’t see it - beyond what I consider normal advertising to promote a product.

rlbarkleyii Loc: GA.

Wallen wrote:

We keep hearing the hubadubs that DSLR is dead. Ma... (show quote)

ENJOYED your perspective, keep up the good work!

rlbarkleyii Loc: GA.

Enjoyed!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Wallen wrote:

br Extremely difficult is not the same as impossi... (show quote)

My first mirrorless camera wasn't selected because it was mirrorless. I had been shooting Canon 5d FF cameras before I switched from full-time to part-time work. After that change I found myself using the Canon too little because of it's size and weight and decided to downsize to APS-C. I started shopping which for me meant lens shopping and I started with the most important lens which for me would be a 14mm on an APS-C sensor. Finding the lens I wanted determined the camera brand I would purchase.

The lens I found was a Fuji XF 14mm f/2.8. It is a symmetrical design wide angle that mounts to Fuji X mirrorless cameras. Getting that lens led me to switch to mirrorless. I still have that lens and consider it one of the finest lenses I have ever owned. It's as good as it is because it is not a retro-focus design. It doesn't have to be since there's no mirror in Fuji X cameras.

It's been lab tested by Imaging Resources. Here's the link: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-14mm-f2.8-r/review/ And here's what they say about distortion in the lens: "Remarkably, there is no distortion at all for images shot with the 14mm ƒ/2.8 R."

If you can find a retro-focus lens for a DSLR in the same focal length range either 12-14mm for a DX camera or 20-21mm for a FX camera that lab tests to the same level of distortion as my Fuji XF 14mm f/2.8 I will apologize for calling your nonsense rubbish. Jus post the link to the lab test.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Ysarex wrote:

My first mirrorless camera wasn't selected because... (show quote)

The Olympus 7-14 f2.8 is basically rectilinear for the full range (again per Image Resource) because of the ability to design such with the shorter flange / sensor distance. Sharp and fun lens to use.

pdsilen Loc: Roswell, New Mexico

I spent four years imassing a few DSLR cameras and a sizable collection of lenses and accessories. And I spent a bundle doing it. From photos that I have viewed comparing quality form DSLR to mirrorless, I see very little difference in the final result. So, I'll keep shooting DSLR for as long as I can.